Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5984020" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I've never seen anyone say either of those things. What post (or which poster) do you have in mind?</p><p></p><p>I think many posters (including me) support reasonable parity of player effectiveness across the range of situations the game is intended to throw up (the 5e designers talk about the "3 pillars" of social, exploration and combat, though all we've seen so far is combat). As 4e has shown, this needn't be mechanical identity: the sorcerer in my 4e game does more damage in combat than the invoker-wizard, for example, but the invoker-wizard still matters, and makes a contribution (control, especially via condition-infliction) that the sorcerer can't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it's reasonable for a game to take for granted that it will or won't be used in certain ways. For example, I don't think it's very important that D&D combat be balanced for bar-room brawls, or professional boxing or wrestling matches. The combat rules take for granted that lethal or near-lethal damage is being inflicted, and that is fine. (I know that 4e permits the last blow to be non-lethal, but this still won't produce very satisfactory sparring rules. It's one thing for a player whose PC drops an NPC using Burning Hands to declare "That NPC is only unconscious, not dead"; but it would nevetheless be absurd to have that PC use Burning Hands in a sporting duel - it is the player, not the PC, who enjoys the power to decide what "0 hp" means.)</p><p></p><p>D&D has historically been narrow in other ways too. For example, "exploration" in D&D has almost always focused on a fairly narrow conception of dungeon exploration. Look at Moldvay Basic, for example, or Gygaxian AD&D: rules for secret doors, finding traps, listening at and opening doors, etc. But there are no rules for wandering around cities, for exploring and understanding museums or galleries, for plotting sea voyages, etc (which might be important in other games, say Cyberpunk, Cthulhu or a Pirate game).</p><p></p><p>And in AD&D "social" is confined mostly to the loyalty and morale of soldiers. There are no rules for dancing, for fast-talking or the like.</p><p></p><p>One thing I like about 4e is that it has working action resolution systems that are more expansive than these D&D traditions. And that, as a side effect, do deal with the unexpected better. Part of what lets them do that is there robustness as a framework (DCs by level, plus the skill challenge success/failure structure). If you are thinking of that as one feature of 4e's balance, I'll happily agree.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure exactly what RPGs you have in mind. But D&D has certain features that make the balance of mechanical effectiveness across PCs especially salient: a strong emphasis on party play; and a strong emphasis on "failure is not an option, and the penalty for failure is death". This very mono-focused approach to the stakes of conflict in D&D mean, for example, that mathematical parity in action resolution matters more, and (say) spotlight balance determined independently of success or failure matters less.</p><p></p><p>Design the game in such a way that failure matters less, and suddenly having an 8 CHA in social situations won't matter so much. Ssome games, like Burning Wheel for example, make players <em>spend</em> resources on PC disadvantages precisely because those disadvantages will mean those players get more spotlight time from their PCs - but Burning Wheel also has a much more relaxed approach to failure than does D&D - it doesn't generally result in PC death.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of the same posters who are hostile to the importance of balance are also hostile to approaches to play that increase the range of stakes in conflict, and thereby reduce the prevalence of life-and-death stakes.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you. But I think that many posters who take the opposite view take for granted that the GM will exercise a very high degree of force not only in world-building or scene-framing but in the actuall process of action resolution, and thereby introduce "balance" or "depth" by the moment-to-moment exercise of fiat. (I don't know if this is true of [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], but in another recent post Ahnehnois did talk about the GM being responsible for creating the story, which suggests something along these lines.)</p><p></p><p>I personally regard that sort of GM force as toxic (both from the point of view of a player, and a GM).</p><p></p><p>I missed that memo too, but a lot of posts seems to take it as a starting point!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5984020, member: 42582"] I've never seen anyone say either of those things. What post (or which poster) do you have in mind? I think many posters (including me) support reasonable parity of player effectiveness across the range of situations the game is intended to throw up (the 5e designers talk about the "3 pillars" of social, exploration and combat, though all we've seen so far is combat). As 4e has shown, this needn't be mechanical identity: the sorcerer in my 4e game does more damage in combat than the invoker-wizard, for example, but the invoker-wizard still matters, and makes a contribution (control, especially via condition-infliction) that the sorcerer can't. I think it's reasonable for a game to take for granted that it will or won't be used in certain ways. For example, I don't think it's very important that D&D combat be balanced for bar-room brawls, or professional boxing or wrestling matches. The combat rules take for granted that lethal or near-lethal damage is being inflicted, and that is fine. (I know that 4e permits the last blow to be non-lethal, but this still won't produce very satisfactory sparring rules. It's one thing for a player whose PC drops an NPC using Burning Hands to declare "That NPC is only unconscious, not dead"; but it would nevetheless be absurd to have that PC use Burning Hands in a sporting duel - it is the player, not the PC, who enjoys the power to decide what "0 hp" means.) D&D has historically been narrow in other ways too. For example, "exploration" in D&D has almost always focused on a fairly narrow conception of dungeon exploration. Look at Moldvay Basic, for example, or Gygaxian AD&D: rules for secret doors, finding traps, listening at and opening doors, etc. But there are no rules for wandering around cities, for exploring and understanding museums or galleries, for plotting sea voyages, etc (which might be important in other games, say Cyberpunk, Cthulhu or a Pirate game). And in AD&D "social" is confined mostly to the loyalty and morale of soldiers. There are no rules for dancing, for fast-talking or the like. One thing I like about 4e is that it has working action resolution systems that are more expansive than these D&D traditions. And that, as a side effect, do deal with the unexpected better. Part of what lets them do that is there robustness as a framework (DCs by level, plus the skill challenge success/failure structure). If you are thinking of that as one feature of 4e's balance, I'll happily agree. I'm not sure exactly what RPGs you have in mind. But D&D has certain features that make the balance of mechanical effectiveness across PCs especially salient: a strong emphasis on party play; and a strong emphasis on "failure is not an option, and the penalty for failure is death". This very mono-focused approach to the stakes of conflict in D&D mean, for example, that mathematical parity in action resolution matters more, and (say) spotlight balance determined independently of success or failure matters less. Design the game in such a way that failure matters less, and suddenly having an 8 CHA in social situations won't matter so much. Ssome games, like Burning Wheel for example, make players [I]spend[/I] resources on PC disadvantages precisely because those disadvantages will mean those players get more spotlight time from their PCs - but Burning Wheel also has a much more relaxed approach to failure than does D&D - it doesn't generally result in PC death. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of the same posters who are hostile to the importance of balance are also hostile to approaches to play that increase the range of stakes in conflict, and thereby reduce the prevalence of life-and-death stakes. I agree with you. But I think that many posters who take the opposite view take for granted that the GM will exercise a very high degree of force not only in world-building or scene-framing but in the actuall process of action resolution, and thereby introduce "balance" or "depth" by the moment-to-moment exercise of fiat. (I don't know if this is true of [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], but in another recent post Ahnehnois did talk about the GM being responsible for creating the story, which suggests something along these lines.) I personally regard that sort of GM force as toxic (both from the point of view of a player, and a GM). I missed that memo too, but a lot of posts seems to take it as a starting point! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top